5 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Dotta	eecbdb67e2	Merge branch 'master' into codex/task-workspace-ownership	2026-10-12 17:28:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9e721264e9	feat: maintain Storybook through a downstream feature catalog (#16046) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Storybook supports review of its production UI and proposed designs. > - Its 223 story files have no consistent link to product capabilities or record of component and mock provenance. > - Old compositions can drift while they still look like current product examples. > - This pull request adds two maintenance skills and a catalog that consumes the existing feature map. > - The first audit preserves all stories and fixes proven fixture drift. > - Contributors can now find examples by feature and see what still needs review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Storybook maintenance, feature discovery, and the accuracy of isolated UI examples. **Current behavior** Stories are already centralized under `ui/storybook/`, but their sidebar has 51 top-level groups. Production components, local prototypes, and historical designs are not consistently distinguished. The old guide uses manual coverage claims. GitHub searches found no duplicate feature-map catalog change. **Proposed behavior** Keep existing story locations and IDs. Add a downstream catalog keyed to stable feature capabilities. Record product status, rendered subject, data boundary, and declared review dependencies separately. Use dedicated maintenance and review skills to reconcile drift and report evidence. **Reason and benefit** The catalog makes existing examples reusable without treating mock behavior or old designs as production acceptance. The feature map remains independent of Storybook. ## What Changed - Add `maintain-storybook` and `review-storybook` skills with contributor guidance. - Inventory all 223 story files. Generate a feature index and provide searchable navigation in the existing Overview story. Track direct subjects through relative imports and local wrappers, including the primitives demonstrated by foundation suites. - Add a checker for inventory, capability references, duplicate IDs, and declared-source drift, with eight regression tests. The parser test covers real nested CSF files, export filters, explicit IDs, and play counts. - Preserve historical designs and classify mixed wrappers. Record the initial audit and remaining parity work. - Align the question-dismiss/send fixture with production behavior. Add dismissal and confirmation-reopen regressions and repair the editor selector. - Exclude three exported fast-response fixtures from story discovery and add the missing render-time callback spy. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`, `node --test scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs` (8 tests), and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`. - Passed: validators for both new skills, `pnpm check:token-gates`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`. - Passed: final Storybook build; nine selected browser `play` cases; three fast-response render cases; feature-guide search/link navigation; question-fixture reset on reload. - Built-index comparison preserved all 2,208 original story IDs and added only two new regression cases. - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui` (728 files, 8,176 tests). - The full `pnpm test:run` has reported a 15-second timeout in the untouched backend case `connects advertised Workspace gmail.read without mutating definitions in authenticated`. The exact test passed standalone without changing code, expectations, or timeouts. The remaining broad run was stopped after this failure. The full suite is not verified. - Visual comparison is blocked by the existing empty baseline manifest. The managed-accounts API/DB fixture was not started. See `maps/storybook-map/REVIEW.md` for exact scope. ## Risks - This is an initial inventory and targeted audit. 188 suites still require deeper state and fixture parity review. - Review hashes cover declared dependencies. They do not follow all transitive production imports or prove semantic correctness. - The catalog requires upkeep when stories, mapped recipes, or declared subjects change. Shared mocks still need feature-by-feature contract review. - No production application source, database schema, or upstream feature-map contract changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. Used reasoning, shell tools, file editing, and Chromium browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 17:20:00 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3867107687	fix(workspaces): verify Git storage and retain source owners ... Use verified checkout and shared Git metadata identities instead of inferring ownership from the metadata parent. Retain authorized storage ownership after checkout removal, fence existing readers, and avoid unrelated Git probes for conventional layouts. Anchor worktree creation to the verified source repository. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 16:44:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b742aff3e1	Merge origin/master and reconcile Slack and workspace migrations ... Preserve managed Slack setup and typed task defaults. Regenerate task workspace migrations after the upstream Slack migration and synchronize the paired feature/access maps. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 15:41:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7d9b93aee2	docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00